“Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for […]Read more "Masterly Concubinage II"
I was born on a 5th February. This is my Article No. 502. This blog was born on 21st December, 2014. Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman in The Sabarimala Temple Case, before answering the question posed, thought it is necessary to cover the ground that has been covered by previous decisions of the SC on the […]Read more "Article No. 502: The Revival of Ray VII"
Friendships & Rivalries, Losses & Victories never have an end – only a beginning. Spectacular Judges of the Supreme Court have hoped for an impactful conclusion. The irreversibly powerful ones have known more. There is never a last word. Life travels with the surety of a pendulum clock, tick tock. We remember: in Puttaswamy, [Writ Petition […]Read more "The Last Word"
Appellant-Siddaling prolonged an ‘illicit relationship’, all while he was freshly married. In an agreement before a Panchayat, Siddaling agreed to change. He never did. A ‘psychological imbalance’ for the wife led her to commit suicide. The Appellant stood convicted under Section 498A and 306 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 yrs […]Read more "Alienation of Affection IV"
The Yajnavalkya Smriti classifies concubines into two types: (1) Avaruddha and (2) Bhujasya. An Avaruddha Stree operates under an injunction to stay at the master’s home whereas a Bhujasya is not kept in the house but elsewhere. There is some protection for an Avaruddha Stree in modern India. There is a presumption in favor of […]Read more "Masterly Concubinage I"
It is increasingly evident that the mere fact of an “illicit affair” is not “cruelty” within the meaning of the first limb of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While discussing Alienation of Affection Tort Actions, I had mentioned Pinakin Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 (“Pinakin”) – a lesser […]Read more "Alienation of Affection III"
Within the meaning of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“Act”) it must be established at the very outset that the “aggrieved person”, the woman, shares a “domestic relationship” with the Respondent. Section 2(f) of the Act, which defines a “domestic relationship”, includes within its ambit live-in relationships. Live-in relationships may very […]Read more "Alienation of Affection II"